Posted on 03/15/2019 6:25:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Time and again, we hear from those advocating for more gun control laws who intone with a sense of moral superiority that we need to have a “conversation” on guns. The goal, they say, is to reduce violence, suggesting that they are somehow more evolved.
Yet, just this week, some anti-gun activists and politicians were caught red-handed fantasizing about wanting to shoot politicians and gun rights advocates as well as suggesting the “doxing,” or publicly posting private information, on gun owners.
In one instance, a woman attending the Connecticut General Assembly’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary hearing on several gun control bills, was photographed texting a threat against Republican state Sen. Rob Sampson and NRA members.
“If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA,” a photo of the text message reads. The anti-gun activist was escorted from the hearing. Later, Sampson said that wasn’t the first time he’s been threatened with violence for standing up for the Constitutional rights of Connecticut citizens. No charges were filed against the woman.
Sneaking in A Lower Receiver
It didn’t end there. At the same hearing, Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, was escorted out of the state legislative office building for smuggling in an 80 percent lower firearm receiver. Stein had reportedly asked Bridgeport Police Chief A.J. Perez to bring the firearm component into the state building for him. The receiver was intended for use as a hearing “prop.” Both planned to testify in favor of tighter gun control laws, even as they tested the limits of existing Connecticut law and public building safety protocols.
What Stein did was to bring into a state government building that doesn’t allow firearms a piece of machined metal that’s not considered a firearm to try to convince people he was technically breaking the law since the lower receiver is intended to eventually become a firearm. He was also conspiring with the police chief of the state’s largest city to pull off the stunt. You can imagine what the reaction would have been if someone from the other side of the debate had tried a tactic like that. You can imagine, but it is not something that would likely happen.
Ironically, the hearing was about proposals covering home storage requirements that carry penalties, banning so-called ghost guns and requiring those open carrying handguns to furnish a permit to police.
Doxing Tactics
It’s not just Connecticut. Maryland Democratic Party Secretary Robbie Leonard posted photos to social media following a Maryland House Judiciary Committee meeting. The marathon gun control hearing saw law-abiding citizens exercising their right to attend the hearing, politely protesting by wearing “We Will Not Comply” t-shirts.
That was too much for Leonard. He posted photos of Maryland citizens, some of whom he surely represents, to social media platforms with the message, “I hope the FBI runs the name of every witness who is wearing a t-shirt that says ‘We Will Not Comply. They’re a bunch of terrorists in the making.”
He didn’t end with just the character attack. He took it a step further and may have violated state law. “Time to dox some homegrown terrorists,” read another Leonard social media post.
Doxing is when personal and private information of an individual or organization is published over the Internet with malicious intent. Maryland law specifically prohibits doxing. And, last we checked, freedom of expression is still a First Amendment right.
Maryland Democratic Executive Director Ben Smith attempted a half-hearted apology, and in so doing, blamed the gun rights protestors. He said the lawmaking process requires “sober and calm deliberation,” but added, “When activists wear shirts stating, ‘We will not comply’ with new firearm regulations, that action escalates the conflict and a willingness to flout the rule of law.”
Talks about some strange ways to start the conversation they claim to want.
When Ghanci performs civil disobediance - heroic
When YOU perform civil disobediance - terrorism
An 80% Receiver is an inert, hunk of metal. Not unlike the inert hunks found between the ears of gun grabbers.
You can bet there is gonna be a “conversation” today!
Bookmark
Leftists NEVER want an actual “conversation.”
Lefties idea of a “conversation” is: They talk, you listen.
No Leftist activist wants a conversation. They want only to give a lecture.
Proof that Leftists are violent and dangerous, just too cowardly to do the job without the police.
Here’s my end of the conversation:
“No.”
L
They know what is best for society and the world at large because they know. If you have differing opinion you are wrong. If you are wrong you should not be heard because you may make corrupt some other person making them wrong. And they will do whatever is necessary to see that you are not heard.
Just ask all the other dictators of the world. How many millions have been silenced by those that know what is best?
Conservatives response: In one ear, out the other.
They “claim” they know better.
Second it.
The left enjoys talking a good game.
“No charges were filed against the woman.”
That was at the end of the paragraph you referrenced She should’ve been jailed for making a terroristic threat. If there are no consequences, why shouldn’t these traitors keep doing these things.
Gun control is not about guns. Never has been. It is about control. Always has been.
It will be a difficult one. The victims were helpless and unprotected. The police did not protect them.
The conversation they don’t want to have is that so far almost all of the mass shooters were radical deranged LIBERALS. The gun is not the problem... Gun + Radical liberal ideology = problem.
a willingness to flout the rule of law.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kind of like “undocumented immigrants”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.